Recently there has been an increased interest in predictive, preventative, and particularly personalized medicine which requires diagnostic tests with higher fidelity, e.g., sensitivity and specificity. Multiplexed measurement platforms, e.g., protein arrays currently used in research, are among the promising diagnostics technologies for the near future. The samples in these tests can be human body fluids such as blood, serum, saliva, biological cells, urine, or other biomolecules but can also be consumables such as milk, baby food, or water. Within this field there is a growing need for low-cost, multiplexed tests for biomolecules such as nucleic acids, proteins, and also small molecules. Achieving the sensitivity and specificity needed in such tests is not without difficult challenges. Combining these tests with integrated electronics and using CMOS technology has provided solutions to some of the challenges.
The two main limitations in a detection assay include sensitivity and cross-reactivity. Both of these factors affect the minimum detectable concentration and therefore the diagnostic error rate. The sensitivity in such tests is generally limited by label detection accuracy, association factor of the probe-analyte pair (for example an antibody-antigen pair), and the effective density of probe molecule (for example probe antibody) on the surface (as shown in FIG. 1). Other molecules in the biological sample can also affect the minimum detectable concentration by binding to the probe molecule (for example the primary antibody), or by physisorption of the analyte to the surface at the test site (as shown in FIG. 2). The detection agent (for example a secondary antibody) may also physisorb to the surface causing an increase in the background signal (as shown in FIG. 2). Solving the cross-reactivity and background problem can take a significant amount of time in the assay development of a new test and increases the cost and complexity of the overall test. The assay is typically optimized by finding the best reagents and conditions and also by manufacturing the most specific probe molecule (for example antibody). This results in a long development time, the infeasibility of tests in some cases, and a higher manufacturing cost. For example a typical development of an ELISA assay requires several scientists working for more than a year finding the correct antibody as part of the assay development. Cross-reactivity of the proteins may be the source of the failure of such an effort.
A biosensor providing a multiple site testing platform was thought to provide a solution to some of the above described limitations in assay development. US Published Patent Applications US2011/0091870 and US2012/0115236 (the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety) describe such biosensors having multiple sites that could be subjected to different reaction conditions to modulate the binding of the biomolecular analyte (for example proteins) to the probe molecule. For example, the signal detected in a biosensor having four sites also can have several components, e.g. four. These four terms may correspond to the concentration of the biomarker of interest, concentration of interfering analytes in the sample that bind non-specifically to primary antibody (probe molecule) sites and prevent the biomarker to bind, concentration of interfering analytes in the sample that form a sandwich and produce wrong signal, and finally the concentration of interfering analytes in the sample that physisorb to the surface and produce wrong signal. Each term is also proportional to a binding efficiency factor, αij, which is a function of the molecule affinities and other assay conditions, e.g., mass transport. By controlling the condition at each site separately, different sites will have different efficiency factors.
Accurate and precise control of the assay conditions at different sites to generate large changes in the binding efficiency factors is important in the performance of such biosensor as a detection system for a biomolecular analyte of interest. In US2014/0008244 (the content of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety) such biosensors and such methods are described that can be readily integrated with a CMOS, electrode array, or TFT based setup to generate large change in binding efficiencies between test sites in a biosensor having an array of multiple test sites. In order to accurately measure the biomolecular analyte of interest the biosensor requires a high degree of reliability and reproducibility. Variations in the modulation of the local pH due to repeated use of the biosensor and variations between subsequent measurements may decrease the accuracy of the determination of the biomolecular analyte of interest by such biosensor. As such the modulation of the pH at each site of the multisite array of the biosensor needs to be accurately controlled and variations in such pH modulation need to be corrected. Therefore, there is a need for a biosensor in which the pH can be accurately, reliably, and reproducibly controlled at each of the multisite array test sites.
General methods for measuring and controlling pH are known in the art. (Durst et al., “Hydrogen-Ion Activity,” Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, pp. 1-15 (2009)). Active pH control of a solution in contact with an electrode surface has potential applications in protein-protein interactions, isoelectric focusing, electrophoresis, combinatorial pH studies of chemical and biochemical processes, DNA denaturation and renaturation, controlling enzymatic processes, cell manipulations, as a means for accelerating or inhibiting chemical reactions with high spatial and temporal resolution, or in other processes involving pH as a variable. For example, US2014/0008244 describes a biosensor capable of modulating the pH or ionic concentration gradient near electrodes in the biosensor in order to modulate the binding interactions of biological samples of interest. In another example, US2014/0274760 (hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety) describes an improved biosensor with increased accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility.
Attempts to control solution properties through electrochemical agents attached to the surface have been described. Electrochemically triggered release of biotin from a modified gold electrode surface via reduction and subsequent lactonization of quinone tether was demonstrated (Hodneland et al., “Biomolecular surfaces that release ligands under electrochemical control,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 122, pp. 4235-36 (2000)). Electrochemical control of self-assembly and release of antibodies from the surface into solution was achieved by reduction and oxidation of n-decanethiol-benzoquinones (Artzy-Schnirman et al., “Artzy-Schnirman et al., Nano Lett. 2008, 8:3398-3403,” Nano Lett. 8, pp. 3398-3403 (2008)). Release of protons from a 3D layer of electroactive material was demonstrated by Frasconi et al. using materials composed of gold nanoparticles and thioanilines (Frasconi et al., “Electrochemically Stimulated pH Changes: A Route To Control Chemical Reactivity,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132(6), pp. 2029-36 (2010)). Electrochemical oxidation of thioaniline groups produced protons that diffused from electrode surface into the surrounding solution, thus altering its pH.
Electrochemical pH modulation in biological solutions presents a significant challenge due to complex nature of the system. The limitations include: presence of buffer components that restrict pH changes, limitations on co-solvents that can be used, presence of strong nucleophiles, such as amines and thiols, and presence of interfering electrochemically active components, such as DNA bases, ascorbic acid and glutathione.
Quinones are one of the most widely studied classes of electrochemically active molecules (See Thomas Finley, “Quinones,” Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 1-35 (2005), which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. See also, Chambers, J. Q. Chem. Quinonoid Compd. 1974, Pt. 2:737-91; Chambers, J. Q. Chem. Quinonoid Compd. 1988, 2:719-57; Evans, D. H. Encycl. Electrochem. Elem. 1978, 12: 1-259). Hydroquinone/benzoquinone transformation has been used as a model system to produce proton gradients at electrode surface (Cannan et al., Electrochem. Communications 2002, 4:886-92). A combination of para-hydroquinone and anthraquinone was used for generation of acidic pH in organic solution as a first step of DNA synthesis, and organic base was added to the solution in order to confine the acidic pH to electrode surface (Maurer, PLOS One 2006, 1:e34). However, those systems cannot be adopted for use in biological solutions due to reactivity of benzoquinone (the product of hydroquinone oxidation) towards nucleophiles that are often present in biological systems, such as peptides, proteins and glutathione (Amaro et al., Chem Res Toxicol 1996, 9(3):623-629); and further due to the insufficient solubility of unsubstituted anthraquinone in water.
Electrochemical time of flight measurements have demonstrated that H+ ions generated on electrodes will diffuse out (Slowinska et al., “An electrochemical time-of-flight technique with galvanostatic generation and potentiometric sensing,” J. Electroanal. Chem. Vol. 554-555, pp. 61-69 (2003); Eisen et al., “Determination of the capacitance of solid-state potentiometric sensors: An electrochemical time-of-flight method,” Anal. Chem. 78(18), pp. 6356-63 (2006)). It has also been shown that the open circuit potential of an electrode surface is a function of the ionic concentration in a solution, including the H+ concentration in the solution, and therefore of the pH of the solution (Yin et al., “Study of indium tin oxide thin film for separative extended gate ISFET,” Mat. Chem. Phys. 70(1), pp. 12-16 (2001)). Similarly, the redox reaction rates of electrochemical species are also pH dependent (Quan et al., “Voltammetry of quinones in unbuffered aqueous solution: reassessing the roles of proton transfer and hydrogen bonding in the aqueous electrochemistry of quinones,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129(42), pp. 12847-56 (2007)). There has also been work done on improving the pH sensitivity of an electrode by incorporation of novel pH sensitive coatings to improve the accuracy of pH sensing (Ge et al., “pH-sensing properties of poly(aniline) ultrathin films self-assembled on indium-tin oxide,” Anal. Chem. 79(4), pp. 1401-10 (2007)).
Many life science applications (proteomics, genomics, microfluidics, cell culture, etc.) use glass slides as a substrate for performing experiments. Examples of glass slides include protein microarrays, lysate arrays, DNA microarrays and cell culture platforms. One use of a protein microarray is to analyze biological substances (e.g., blood serum) from patients with a specific disease in comparison to corresponding substances from healthy or control subjects. The biological substances are applied to a microarray containing many (often thousands of) human proteins. Antibodies in diseased substances may react (bind) with certain antigens in the microarray, thereby identifying the antigens as disease-specific biomarkers. In addition to protein detection, other types of detection such as colorimetric, chemiluminescence and fluorescence detection are also possible with glass slides.
Often the experiments are performed under aqueous conditions, in which a substance-of-interest is combined with water or a water-containing liquid and placed onto a slide for analysis. In many cases the presence of bubbles (formed of air or other gases) disturbs the experiment, adversely affecting the results. One example of an adverse effect is when a bubble causes the test solution to dry out. This can create a false binding event where the substance-of-interest (e.g., a biomolecular analyte) fails to bind with a molecule with which the biomolecular analyte is supposed to interact. Another example is where the bubbles change the effective flow rate of the test solution and the flow rate is being measured as part of the experiment. Therefore, it is desirable to detect bubbles and to output an indication of their presence, so that experiment results can be interpreted correctly.
One way to detect bubbles is to manually check each slide under a microscope. However, microscopy is not always practical because the field of view is typically limited to a small area of the slide, so that checking the entire slide is time-consuming. Additionally, the use of light to illuminate the slide under the microscope can sometimes have a destructive effect on the substance-of-interest.